Paul Craig Roberts has been saying for years that there is no justice unless there is a trial. He indicates that any plea bargains at all destroy the idea of justice where the open court and the jury decide guilt or innocence.

If he is correct; we have no justice at all since 98% (or so) of all cases are decided in the "back room" by government officials.

Glenn, how do you see this?

I know this is a truly unforgivably ignorant question, but Google isn't providing me an answer, so sincere apologies in advance.

To restore habeus corpus, wouldn't the Democrats have to enact new legislation to repeal the MCA? If so, won't The Decider just veto it?

(It's times like this when I truly despair of ever having the damage this administration has done repaired. A divided Supreme Court might or might not find the MCA unconstitutional--even though it clearly is--and, there isn't a veto-proof majority in Congress. So much for checks and balances.)

I'm wondering if some form of this isn't at work on long-time Beltway Democrats.

Most of them can't be so stupid as to buy the neocon "liberal media" bloviation. They know that the MSM and the Republicans are not out to protect Democratic interests (or their constituents').

So why in the world would any Democrat give even a microscopic portion of credibility to pundits and Republican operatives (did I just repeat myself? Probably…) spouting “warnings” about voter backlash to [insert principled stand here]?

Really, I can only consider it in light of the Stockholm Syndrome. This is where a prisoner or hostage starts identifying with the people around them, even though those people and their goals are inimical to that prisoner.

If a hostage can identify with a terrorist who will likely kill the hostage at any moment, it seems reasonable to me that a person who is merely attempting to maintain their livelihood could identify with others doing the same thing, only just much more aggressively.

From what I can tell, it takes a thick skin to be a politician. They are called names and have insults slipped between their ribs from their own party members, but are then supposed to smile and be supportive to the party member that stabbed them in the back (http://www.thepoorman.net/2007/04/04/he-learned-his-lesson-well). I conclude insults and name-calling from the other party doesn’t even register.

I suspect most of us would be quite oppositional to a group of people that called us stupid, ignorant, weak, soft, cowards, and traitors every other minute of the day. We’d see not just an opponent, but an enemy. I would think we would stand up for things like habeas corpus, right to privacy, Constitutional checks-and-balances, and peace, even if to simply make Monty Python French taunts at people who were trying to eliminate them.

Instead, the politicians who suffer these outrages see merely people like themselves, and hear background noise. The only thing that matters inside the Beltway is survival.

It has been said that politicians need to be changed frequently, for the same reason as diapers. I suggest a more charitable view. Politicians need to be changed so they can see the real terrorists as the criminals they are, and regain some perspective on why they were sent to Washington in the first place.

The Democrats need to restore habeus corpus. Period.

darmsTX,

The suspension of habeas corpus is pretty clearly unconstitutional, but it has to be challenged through the court system, up through the Supreme Court. That takes time and it takes a case. It's much harder to do without a specific case (or cases), and legal access to the people in Gitmo has been intentionally limited. (And according to reports, even those limited client-lawyer relations have been intentionally sabotaged. It's damn near impossible to work with clients who have been led to believe that you're not on their side.)

I have applauded your recent focus on the failings of the press. But I completely agree that habeas corpus is the bright line between civilization and tyranny, that forcing our government back into the light is the most important change we can make right now, and that the duty belongs to the Democrats in Congress.

You wrote forcefully about it at the time. I compared it to the German Enabling Act of 1933:

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/The_New_Enabling_Act_0927.html

Every day this outrage is allowed to continue makes it that much less likely that this country will regain its place of honor as a free society.

Glenn, I understand the importance of habeas corpus, but is the MCA law itself even constitutional?

It's plainly unconstitutional, but that doesn't mean the Supreme Court will rule that it is. Lower courts have sanctioned all sorts of abuses under the Bush presidency.

Habeas corpus rights should not rest on a 5-4 majority -- nor on the health of John Paul Stevens.

i read you all the time, as you know, and agree on most issues and viewpoints.

no issue, and i mean no issue, is more important than this one, because this literally defines who we are;

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/mailapp/

Glenn, I understand the importance of habeas corpus, but is the MCA law itself even constitutional? Shouldn't it require a constitutional amendment to take away such a fundamental right? If all it takes to undo the constitution is a simple bill signed into law, what's to stop the next GW when they, say, start shutting down media outlets and imprisoning reporters?

One of the faults of the so-called left of the blogosphere is that it too often puts partisanship before principle. So I'm always very heartened when bloggers are willing to put principle first.

Ben, I wouldn't limit the partisanship to the left, in fact the right leaning blogs I see are distinctly more likely to do so. Are examples anything more than redundant? It is always important to scrutinize whether any source is merely serving as an advocate for a party talking point or perhaps merely illustrating a coincidental supporting fact. Before attributing the circumstances to a left ideology or a right ideology, ask which party the article supports, GOP or Democrats. Then reconcile that with classic conservative ideals and classic liberal ideals.

Left or right doesn't necessarily mean what it used to mean when you evaluate your information sources through this lens.

Now

Left = Dissent

Right = Conformance until it becomes dissent

Ideology fell off the bandwagon years ago.